genetic engineering - My Class

stubbornnessuglyΒιοτεχνολογία

12 Δεκ 2012 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 7 μήνες)

149 εμφανίσεις

GMO UNIT

1.
Farmers Joining State Efforts Against Bioengineered Crops


Vocabulary:

moratorium
________________________________________________




__________________________________________________________
biotech crops
_______________________________________________



__________________________________________________________
genetic engineering
__________________________________________


__________________________________________________________
biotechnology opponents

_____________________________________

__________________________________________________________


Genetic modification
_________________________________________

__________________________________________________________
North Dakota

is weighing a bill that would make it
the first state to ban planting of

a
genetically modified crop
, reflecting a surge of concern about such crops in legislatures around
the country.

The North Dakota bill, which would impose a two
-
year moratorium on growing geneticall
y
modified wheat. State bills introduced this year that would regulate biotech crops or the labelling
of foods made using genetic engineering. A bill has been introduced to ban the planting of
genetically modified crops. The North Dakota bill signals a tre
nd that concern about genetically
engineered crops is now
coming not only from environmental and consumer groups but
from farmers
,

who have generally supported such crops.

All the state bills proposed in past years failed except North Dakota bill because
i
ts main
backers are some of the state's own farmers, not the usual biotechnology opponents.

While
many of these farmers say they are not in principle opposed to bioengineered foods,
they fear
losing the ability to export their crops to Europe, Japan and ot
her places where consumers
are shunning such food and where governments strictly regulate it.

''We don't want to lose the ability to sell our wheat abroad,'' said Todd Leake, a farmer from near
Grand Forks and one of the strongest champions of the North Da
kota measure. ''Most of the
economy in North Dakota is agriculture,'' Mr. Leake noted, ''and wheat is the mainstay of that.''

To some extent, the North Dakota bill is merely symbolic;

the moratorium would expire on
July 31, 2003
, probably before any geneti
cally modified seed would even come to market. And
the bill does not mention enforcement. Still,
that has not prevented Monsanto, which is
developing genetically modified wheat, and some farm groups opposed to the bill from
putting up a stiff fight
. So, wh
ile the bill breezed through the state's House last month by a vote
of 68 to 29, its passage in the Senate is far from assured.

Article #1:

Farmers Joining State Efforts Against Bioengineered Crops

1.

NAME AT LEAST FIVE PARTIES INTERESTED IN WHAT WILL HAPP
EN WITH
GMO, AND ELABORATE THEIR INTERESTS.


A.

STATE: _____________________________________________________________




B.

_____________________________________________________________________



C.


_____________________________________________________________________



D.


_____________________________________________________________________



E.


_____________________________________________________________________



F.


_____________________________________
________________________________



2.

“Still, that has not prevented Monsanto, which is developing genetically
modified wheat, and some farm groups opposed to the bill from putting up
a stiff fight
...”
Explain, what would be the reasons for these two groups to

have the described attitude
.



Monsanto
_______________________________________________________


________________________________________________________________




Some farm groups
_________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________



_____________________________________________________________

2.
EUROPE APPROVES STRICT FOOD RULES

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.


PARIS, Feb. 14


The
European Union

Parliament passed a measure tod
ay that establishes
strict rules on
genetically modified

organisms
, preparing to end Europe's unofficial
moratorium on bioengineered seeds and food.

The overwhelming 338
-
to
-
52 vote was cast despite intense suspicions about genetically modified
foods. But t
he strictness of the new controls responds to those fears.
The rules govern the
testing, planting and sale of crops and food

for humans and animals and the testing and sale of
pharmaceuticals.

Under the rules, companies have to apply for licenses that will

last 10 years and pass approval
processes. All genetically altered products will be tracked in a database that will also mark the
locations of all crops.

A separate bill
to set tough food labelling

and tracing requirements is to be ready by April, and
it
is widely expected to pass in some form.

With the changes, the three
-
year
-
old
moratorium

may end soon, perhaps by next year, replaced
by systematic rules. ''The earliest you could expect approval for a product is spring of next year,''
said David R. Bowe,
the British
legislator who wrote the bill
. He theorized that varieties that
did not flower or were meant solely for animal consumption could gain approval sooner than
others.

Under European Union law, all 15 member countries are required to make their laws

conform
to
the new rules in 18 months. Several governments, including those of
France

and
Denmark
, said
they would resist approvals.

A spokeswoman for the Parliament said defying the law would open the countries to a suit in the
European Court of Justice
in
Luxembourg

to force
compliance
.
''These are the toughest
G.M.O
. laws in the world,'' Mr. Bowe said, using
shorthand
for
genetically modified organisms
. ''Even the Greens can't say they're not
strict enough.''

In much of the world, in fact, the modified substances have been welcomed.

Many members of European Green parties were among the 85 abstentions today, as they fear the
demise

of the informal moratorium.

Mr. Bowe foresaw as much, saying thi
s is ''the beginning of the end'' of the
ban
. Fourteen farm
products are ''waiting on the shelf'' for consideration,
including two types of corn, a tomato, a
beet, a chicory, a rapeseed for canola oil and cotton,

he said. And because all have been
planted
in the United States for up to a decade, Mr. Bowe added, producing documentation for
regulators should not be difficult.

Article #2.

EUROPE APPROVES STRICT FOOD RULES

VOCABULARY

European Union_________________________
_______________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Canola _______________________________________________________________________

Moratorium____________________________________________________________________

Genetically altered products_______________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

To theorize
____
________________________________________________________________

Rapeseed

_____________________________________________________________________

Ban _________________________________________________________________________

Conform __________________________
___________________________________________

Bill __________________________________________________________________________

Demise _______________________________________________________________________

Denmark(see atlas)___________________________________
___________________________

Modified substances _____________________________________________________________

Compliance ___________________________________________________________________

Main idea

of the article
(TOPIC + author’s view /controlling idea)
:____________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________
Details that support main idea
:

-

____________________________________________
________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

-
_____________________________________________________________________________

-
________________________________________________________________
_____________

3.
Should We Fear Genetically Modified Fish?

By R.T. Jones
,
Wednesday, September 1st, 2010


So there's a company called Aqua Bounty Technologies that wants

approval from the FDA to sell
salmon that's been genetically manipulated

to grow twice as fast as traditional Atlantic salmon.

This kind of genetic manipulation of our food is worrisome. However, Aqua Bounty's CEO said that
he's eaten the fish, and they
taste great. Yeah, that's right. That should put your mind at ease.
You
know what else tastes great? Chili cheese hot dogs from 7
-
Eleven.
But it doesn't mean I should be
eating that unhealthy fast food.

But what about that monster salmon? Are we going to k
now what we're eating? Will it matter? What
happens if those frankenfish get out?

A Solution to Overfishing

Aqua Bounty CEO Ronald Stotish recently said. . .

We're not saying if they approve our salmon
we're going to feed the world. But there's a general c
onsensus that overfishing is a fact of life.”

General Consensus? What general consensus? Overfishing should not be shrugged off as “a fact of
life.”
We don't have to overfish
. We just choose to overfish
. Yes, it is a choice
.
The world will
not

starve if

w
e
fish responsibly
. But then again, who really wants to stop diving face first into steam
trays of maple
-
glazed salmon on cruise ships and strip mall smorgasbords?

You know, maybe
if we utilized our fish stocks
responsibly

instead of clear
-
cutting our oceans,
streams and rivers of marine life, we wouldn't need to worry about overfishing. But no, that takes too
much common sense. Plus, it requires us to be responsible consumers

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not against making
a buck. I just have a problem making a buck when
it's at the expense of our
natural capital
. Then again, who knows. Maybe everything will be fine.
Maybe nothing horrible will
happen. But when it comes the health of our fish stocks, it seems to me
that we should be focusing more on the overfishing problem, and less on genetically screwing
with the perfection that Mother Nature has provided.

Aricle #3:

Should We Fear Genetically

Modified Fish?


Summarize the article starting with:

1.

General introductory

sentence:



2.

Main idea

of the article =
topic

/ issue
+
controlling idea /
author’s point of view

on the
topic:






3.

Supporting details

-

details that support the main idea:









4.
REWRITE YOUR GOOD COPY IN A PARAGRAPH FORM.

4.
Salmon
-

NO FOR GMO’s
:
GE salmon? Are you out of your minds?

http://www.naturalnews.com/029933_GE_salmon_Frankenfish.html


GMO salmon
-

many are referring to as "Frankenfish (like Frankenstein
-
monstrous)


(NaturalNews) Has the FDA gone compl
etely mad?
Why are they trying to open the
flood gates to genetically engineered (GE) salmon
--

a move that will go down in
history as one of the most asinine and dangerous ever made by our government
?
What’s it going to take for them to actually start pro
tecting public health?

FDA

is Consumer watchdog in America's healthcare system.



The FDA is reviewing data submitted by
AquaBounty, the company that weaved a
growth hormone gene into Atlantic salmon,
f
orcing it to grow up to five times faster
and reach market size in about 18 months instead of 3 years. But according to the
evidence, their
buff salmon

might have higher levels of a cancer promoting hormone
IGF
-
1 (more antibiotics, and more of a potentiall
y life
-
threatening allergen(s).


The FDA failed to learn their lesson with their idiotic approval of genetically engineered
bovine growth hormone. It also has higher levels of IGF
-
1 and more antibiotics. Now it’s
condemned by the American Public Health Ass
ociation and the American Nurses
Association, banned in most other countries, and has been banished by most US
dairies. Even Wal
-
Mart won’t allow the stuff into their milk.


The GE soy and corn on the market, which the
FDA continues to pretend is just the
same as the natural food,
also has higher levels of allergens, and has been linked to
numerous disorders. Now the American Academy of Environmental Medicine
condemned genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and urged all physicians to
prescribe non
-
GMO diets
. “GMO
-
Free” is one of the fastest growing health claims
among US brands for the past two years, and a tipping point of consumer rejection of all
GE ingredients appears to be just over the horizon.


Then there is the threat of Frankenfish escaping into the

wild. Here too, the FDA ignores
the lessons from GE crops which, in spite of early assurances to the contrary, have
been
contaminating non
-
GE crops

and wild relatives all over the world for more than
a decade. Their self
-
propagating
genetic pollution is i
rreversible
; it can outlast the
effects of global warming and nuclear waste. But somehow escaped GE salmon carry
an even greater hazard.




Article #4:
Salmon
-

NO FOR GMO’s: GE salmon? Are you out of your minds?

QUESTIONS:

1.

What was

AquaBounty’s

interest to

weave

a growth hormone gene into Atlantic salmon
?


________________________________________________________________________

2.

What are some of the problem with genetically modified food?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

3.

Why i
s
FDA

criticised? Think of the role this agency should obtain? Did it fail and how?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________
___________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

4.

What does it mean when we say, “...
genetic pollution is irreversible
.”

________________________________________________________________________

___
_____________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

5.

Who

opposed (
condemned
/disapproved)

FDA
?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

6.

How non
-
GE crop becomes contaminated?


______________________________________________________________________
__

5.

Genetically
Modified A
llergies

The situation with allergies is worse. According to Hansen, the tests conducted by AquaBounty
confirmed that “the act of genetic engineering did lead to an increase in allergenic potency.” In
fact, when the flesh from egg
-
laying (diploid) fish was exposed to the blood (sera) of people who
are allergic to salmon, there was a whopping 52% increase in reaction levels.


Furthermore,
the specific allergen that had increased in the Frankenfish (
GMO salmon
)

was
not supposed to be affected
. It did not come from the inserted gene. Rather, the increase in this
potentially life
-
threatening allergen was just one of the
unpredictable side
-
effects that can
result from the process of genetic engineering itself.


The

FDA decided this time to ignore this
troublesome finding
, since it was from the egg
-
laying
diploids. The company did test the allergic reaction to the triploids (the ones we’ll eat), but used
fish that were raised in Canada, not Panama. This should have d
isqualified the fish study,
according to Hansen, since the composition of GE salmon can obviously be affected by water
temperature, and growing conditions. Still, the Canadian raised Frankenfish elicited
an allergic
response level that was 20% higher than
normal salmon
. But the FDA dismissed this figure
since it was not statistically significant and concluded that the GE salmon was safe to eat. But of
course it wasn’t statistically significant. They used just six fish in the sample size! The easiest
way to
prevent statistical significance is by using a pathetically small number of subjects in your
experiment. Hansen said:


“To base a conclusion of no additional risk on exactly six engineered fish, when those data
themselves suggest a possible problem, is not

responsible science

or responsible risk
assessment. FDA owes it to the thousands of Americans who are allergic to finfish to demand
more data on the allergenicity of these engineered salmon from AquaBounty.”

Thank you Dr. Hansen for helping to protect us
from the bungling Frankenfish promoters.
Let’s hope they will listen.


Article #5
QUESTIONS:

“This
unpredictable side
-
effects result from the process of genetic engineering itself.

Explain this statement.


________________________________________________________________________

1.

“To base a conclusion of no additional risk on exactly six engineered fish, when
those data themselves suggest a possible problem, is not responsible science.
Explain this st
atement.


________________________________________________________________________